The Council of Legislation, the proposed one, is simplified as a suggestion to serve as a basis for research and discussion. It is evident that any Council of Legislation established in the Egyptian territory must be composed of members elected and others appointed by the government. The question that requires a ruling, therefore, is the intention of the appointed members towards appointment, their methods of appointment, and their traditions. There is no need to elaborate on the common arguments presented for preferring either the appointment or the election system over the other, as this is a trade-off. The one who undertakes to consider the specific characteristics of the situation in Egypt. Let us assume that among the political states, individuals and organized groups tend towards injustice in power if they are not restrained by what they have come to dominate, and that the subjects view the actions of every government with suspicion and apprehension, whether their view is justified or not. This apprehension exists in Egypt to a degree specific to it – perhaps even exceeding the limit – for two reasons. Firstly, the country has not yet shed the ingrained belief from the days when most of the evil originated from the actions of its rulers. Secondly, in countries where competition and debate sometimes occur among the settled population, the illusions they have conceived or the places to which those individuals retreat do not disappear. It is not appropriate in such circumstances to be extreme in adhering to the principle of appointment. Therefore, although my opinion is that the Egyptian and British governments have the right to reject decisions that they object to, I also believe it is necessary to refrain from composing the council in a way that makes it easy for the government to compel the council to ratify what it decrees, even if the public is burdened and humiliated by it, as if it were a translation. The system of appointment must remain within the limits that people generally recognize as necessary for the public interest. As for the other system, which complements the system of appointment, it is the system of election. This must also be pursued with caution and circumspection in Egypt, given its particular circumstances. I have had many discussions on this subject with men who are capable of giving an opinion on it, and I have found that they have some reservations about being extreme in pursuing the system of appointment, but they anticipate what might result from being extreme in the system of election. The reason for this is that, as I have been told many times, there is no "public opinion" in Egypt. The intention is not to suggest that there is an obstacle to public opinion, as is the case. Nor is the intention to criticize the local European newspapers, as they are active in expressing the public's opinion and their efforts are crowned with success.